As New York lawmakers debate how far to go in limiting cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities, a key fault line has emerged: whether any exceptions should exist at all.
Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed a package that would generally bar local law enforcement from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement in civil cases, while still allowing coordination when criminal activity is suspected. The governor says the approach is designed to protect constitutional rights while maintaining public safety.
But immigrant advocates say that exception could undermine the entire effort.
“It’s exactly where the problem lies,” said Milan Bhatt, Senior Political Advisor at Rural & Migrant Ministry, which is part of a statewide coalition pushing for stronger protections.
Bhatt argues the proposal comes at a time of intensified immigration enforcement nationally, with ripple effects already being felt in New York communities.
“What we have seen nationally and here in New York in the past couple of years is a real shift in federal policy,” Bhatt said. “Policies that we believe … have literally been ripping apart families and destroying communities, as well as local economies.”
Competing visions in Albany
At the center of the debate are two competing approaches.
Hochul’s plan—sometimes referred to as the “Local Cops, Local Crimes Act”—would limit cooperation in civil immigration cases but allow it in criminal investigations.
Advocates, including the Rural & Migrant Ministry, are backing the broader “New York for All” legislation, which would more strictly prohibit any collaboration between local authorities and federal immigration enforcement.
Bhatt said that bill offers clearer, more consistent protections.
“New York for All does mainly three things,” he said. It would prohibit state and local officers from enforcing federal immigration law, restrict the sharing of personal data with immigration authorities, and require that detained individuals be informed of their right to an attorney.
The legislation would also bar ICE and Border Patrol from accessing non-public areas of places like hospitals without a judicial warrant.
Concerns about discretion and profiling
The sticking point, advocates say, is the role of police discretion.
Under Hochul’s proposal, officers could still contact federal immigration authorities when they suspect criminal activity. Bhatt warns that opens the door to subjective decision-making in everyday encounters.
“Where it gets much more problematic is when we are seeing state and local law enforcement expected … to be making decisions about immigration status,” he said. “That is not something that is even decipherable.”
He and other advocates fear that could lead to racial profiling, particularly during routine interactions like traffic stops.
“Oftentimes, it’s making assumptions based on characteristics … nothing to do with actual activity,” Bhatt said.
He emphasized that the concern is not about policing itself, but about assigning immigration enforcement responsibilities to officers who are not trained for it.
“They don’t have a constitutional mandate to be doing the work of federal immigration,” he said.
A chilling effect
Beyond individual encounters, Bhatt says the broader impact could be a chilling effect across communities.
“If there is a disincentive for victims of crimes to come forward,” he said, “that has consequences for everyone.”
He pointed to domestic violence survivors and others who may avoid reporting crimes out of fear that interaction with police could lead to detention or deportation.
In rural areas, where the Rural & Migrant Ministry does much of its work, that fear can shape daily life—from seeking medical care to going to work.
“We’re seeing immigrant communities being relegated into the shadows,” Bhatt said.
Economic stakes
Bhatt also framed the issue in economic terms, particularly for rural New York.
Immigrants, he said, have accounted for a significant share of population growth in rural communities and contribute billions in taxes and spending power statewide. Industries like agriculture and construction are already struggling to fill jobs, he added, a challenge he links in part to increased immigration enforcement.
“These are not hypothetical concerns,” Bhatt said. “They are wide-ranging, tangible concerns that have economic consequences, constitutional consequences.”
Ongoing negotiations
Negotiations over the legislation are continuing in Albany, with advocates pushing lawmakers to adopt the full “New York for All” bill without exceptions.
For now, the outcome remains uncertain. But advocates say the direction New York takes could have implications far beyond the state.
“We want New York to continue to be a leader,” Bhatt said, “and set an example for the rest of the nation.”
Image: Demonstrators march down Fifth Avenue during a protest against war in Venezuela and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jan. 11, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Heather Khalifa, File)